ArticleBMC health services research2026
Back on track: a case study on sustaining and reducing stroke treatment times in a medium-sized Norwegian hospital.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSustaining continuous improvement (CI) in healthcare organizations remains challenging, particularly in settings characterized by disciplinary silos. Although many initiatives achieve initial improvements, less is known about how improvement efforts are sustained, decline over time, or become revitalized. This study examined the long-term development of a cross-disciplinary stroke care improvement initiative in a Norwegian general hospital.
methodsWe conducted a diagnostic single-case study of a cross-disciplinary improvement initiative in stroke care. Data were collected over an extended period (2013-2024) and included participant observations, internal documents, and performance data (door-to-needle times), as well as six semi-structured interviews with members of the interdisciplinary improvement group. Data was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, supported by triangulation across data sources and iterative discussions among the authors.
resultsInitial reductions in treatment times were associated with the development of cross-disciplinary structures, including a shared care pathway, continuous performance feedback, and team-based organization. A subsequent decline in performance appeared to be linked to personnel changes and reduced improvement activity. Improvement efforts were later revitalized through simulation-based training and renewed practitioner engagement. The analysis identified three interrelated themes: (1) development of practitioner ownership, (2) establishment of cross-disciplinary structures, and (3) the role of these structures in enabling the revitalization of improvement efforts.
conclusionsThis study suggests that sustaining continuous improvement in cross-disciplinary healthcare processes depends on the interaction between practitioner engagement and organizational support structures. Declining performance was caused by reduced improvement activity, personnel changes, and weakening practitioner ownership. At the same time, established cross-disciplinary structures - such as performance feedback, shared care pathways, and team-based work - enabled recognition of these problems and supported subsequent revitalization efforts. While the empirical findings are case-specific, the study highlights the potential value of a diagnostic approach for identifying and addressing breakdowns in continuous improvement processes in and beyond healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.